Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

[Quasievil]

That's the damn trouble - he is a straight up bloke - I'd consider him under informed on greater world events (which in some ways would be a great thing, there is so much shite going on out there, but, if you're not talking politics from a different viewpoint, he's as good as they come!
Now, back to the shit fight...and where do those figures come from?
....the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

(Im here ya know) I will tell you something else about me, Im happy to be challenged if it turns out Im wrong I will probably thank you for it. I think Im right on this one tho, but challenge away.
One thing I have learnt in life is if you want the truth ask yourself, is there money involved, if so follow that for the truth.

here is a link to some of this info

http://junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/index.html

[Winston001]

and where do those figures come from?
....the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

The general consensus among climatologists is human activity has contributed 4% per year to annual greenhouse gases over 150 years. Volcanoes contribute much more as do natural processes. Nobody disputes that.

The argument is whether humans contribute 4% or a lot less.

But I don't bother arguing about that. What I see is pollution and I believe we should reign that in. We pour a heap of smoke into the world.

[Oblivion]

The general consensus among climatologists is human activity has contributed 4% per year to annual greenhouse gases over 150 years. Volcanoes contribute much more as do natural processes. Nobody disputes that.

The argument is whether humans contribute 4% or a lot less.

But I don't bother arguing about that. What I see is pollution and I believe we should reign that in. We pour a heap of smoke into the world.

Most of the smoke produced is from humans burning fuel for energy. China does it by the bucket, mostly coal. In South Africa they burn wood for warmth. Here, In New Zealand we burn wood for alot of things. The more people there are on the planet, the greater the consumption of resources.

Fuel like wood is a cheap and renewable resource.

The bulk of the ETS is pretty much making people pay a tax for living comfortably.

[SPman]

The general consensus among climatologists is human activity has contributed 4% per year to annual greenhouse gases over 150 years. Volcanoes contribute much more as do natural processes. Nobody disputes that.

As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO₂ per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO₂ into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO₂. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO₂ with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources.

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO₂ emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO₂ than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO₂ emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO₂ that dwarfs the annual CO₂ emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO₂ emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO₂ emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO₂ emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO₂ estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO₂ output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO₂ emission rate to the anthropogenic CO₂ emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO₂ estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).
There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO₂ emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO₂ emissions dwarf global volcanic CO₂ emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[Winston001]

IPCC and its "in the pocket, seeking funding" scientists , Al Gore, stupid Media bandwagoners, right through to the Nats and our good friend Nick Smith.
How did they do it? scaremongering via various means using the winning "we are all going to die if you dont do this" tactics add to it the ever enthusiatic looney greens and green peace nutters and pressure groups and the governments of the world.

Sooo...I don't really understand this.

Are you saying Al Gore had a bright idea one day, got hold of various scientists from all over the world, and told them to make up data which implied the Earth was warming?

Then he secretly called together politicians from various nations and said - "Boys, do I have a scam for you!".

Actually I'm surprised Al Gore even knows Nick Smith.

But hang on - the previous Labour government introduced emissions trading in NZ. That can't be right. National carried on with it. So Al Gore must first have conspired with Labour to get it going. But why would Nick Smith of all people support a Labour idea? And actually bring it into law?

[Quasievil]

Sooo...I don't really understand this.

Are you saying Al Gore had a bright idea one day, got hold of various scientists from all over the world, and told them to make up data which implied the Earth was warming?

Then he secretly called together politicians from various nations and said - "Boys, do I have a scam for you!".

Actually I'm surprised Al Gore even knows Nick Smith.

But hang on - the previous Labour government introduced emissions trading in NZ. That can't be right. National carried on with it. So Al Gore must first have conspired with Labour to get it going. But why would Nick Smith of all people support a Labour idea? And actually bring it into law?

How would I know who knows who and the ineer workings of the UN and their IPCC cronies, there are organisations and they do talk to each other (of course) and progressively we have ended up with the tax scam we have today.

[pete376403]

Yes.

Christchurch City Council does exactly that. Methane from the Burnside landfill is captured instead of going into the atmosphere. That creates carbon credits for CCC which sells them to British Gas for $1 million per year.

Even better, CCC then burn the methane to heat the QE II pool complex.

Lower Hutt city Council do a similar thing with gas from the Silverstream landfill. That gas is burned to generate electricity.
However according to Wiki burning methane produces heat, water and CO2
"CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) (ΔH = −891 kJ/mol (at standard conditions))
where bracketed "g" stands for gaseous form and bracketed "l" stands for liquid form."
Do the councils then tax themselves for their emissions?

[Scouse]

Yes I do, and ??
did you have a point?

Well yes I do, do I need to spell it out? I thought that you were intelligent enough to read between the lines of that question, others on the site seem to have got it.

[Quasievil]

Well yes I do do I need to spell it out? I thought that you were inteligent enough to read between the lines of that question, others on the site seem to have got it.

Oh, it was as simplistic as it appeared,sorry.
Great contribution, well done

[Scouse]

Oh, it was as simplistic as it appeared,sorry.
Great contribution, well done

My pleasure

[Quasievil]

My pleasure

So give me a go on your speed triple, I want one to try out

[BMWST?]

Lower Hutt city Council do a similar thing with gas from the Silverstream landfill. That gas is burned to generate electricity.
However according to Wiki burning methane produces heat, water and CO2
"CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) → CO2(g) + 2 H2O(l) (ΔH = −891 kJ/mol (at standard conditions))
where bracketed "g" stands for gaseous form and bracketed "l" stands for liquid form."
Do the councils then tax themselves for their emissions?

but the methabe would have escaped any way,so by burning it to produce electricity we have "free" carbon emmisions cos they would have escaped any way....its like the argument f or burning wood,if you burn wood you produce CO2 but no more than the co2 that would have been emitted if the wood deconposed on the forest floor.Its about efficiency too,

[jonbuoy]

Genuine questions Quasi:

Do you think there is way too much man made pollution? (maybe its not so easy to see in clean green NZ buts it pretty horrific in a lot of countries).

Do you believe we can carry on burning fossil fuels and polluting the way we all are at the moment for hundreds of more years without any consequences?

Do you think we should all cut down?

Do you think asking people politely to cut down will work or is the only way to hit them in their pockets?

More than anything I think governments should be putting a massive tax on goods imported from countries with poor human rights (slave labour) and poor environmental considerations - ie anything made in China.

[Quasievil]

Do you think there is way too much man made pollution? (maybe its not so easy to see in clean green NZ buts it pretty horrific in a lot of countries).

Yes of course

Do you believe we can carry on burning fossil fuels and polluting the way we all are at the moment for hundreds of more years without any consequences?

Nope we need to find other ways of creating energy

Do you think we should all cut down?

Yes reduction of energy use is a good thing

Do you think asking people politely to cut down will work or is the only way to hit them in their pockets?

I think Governments via legislation and various mandates is fine as far as a usefull tool to encourage reduction, I dont see it as necessary at all to tax people further, especially when it actually isnt working (TV3 news this morning even noted that we are not meeting the bullshit objectives or anywhere near them) and I take (as you might have noticed) particular offence to the FACT that these taxes where introduced under the smoke scree of false science and scare mongering tactics.

More than anything I think governments should be putting a massive tax on goods imported from countries with poor human rights (slave labour) and poor environmental considerations - ie anything made in China.

I dont, that just means we pay more..........again.

Just to reiterate, NZ contributes just 0.11% towards the total apparent manmade emissions, 0.11% so whats the point of us being so hell bent on this issue if the major players, china india, the USA arent involved in the Kyoto protocol and its scammy ways.
we shouldnt be leading this, how can we we (as I said) could go to ZERO % and the planet wouldnt notice nor would anyone else.
Its pointless, so what are we paying $150 a year for exactly ??? (due to rise to double that in 2013)

[Spearfish]

Yes of course


Nope we need to find other ways of creating energy


Yes reduction of energy use is a good thing


I think Governments via legislation and various mandates is fine as far as a usefull tool to encourage reduction, I dont see it as necessary at all to tax people further, especially when it actually isnt working (TV3 news this morning even noted that we are not meeting the bullshit objectives or anywhere near them) and I take (as you might have noticed) particular offence to the FACT that these taxes where introduced under the smoke scree of false science and scare mongering tactics.


I dont, that just means we pay more..........again.

Just to reiterate, NZ contributes just 0.11% towards the total apparent manmade emissions, 0.11% so whats the point of us being so hell bent on this issue if the major players, china india, the USA arent involved in the Kyoto protocol and its scammy ways.
we shouldnt be leading this, how can we we (as I said) could go to ZERO % and the planet wouldnt notice nor would anyone else.
Its pointless, so what are we paying $150 a year for exactly ??? (due to rise to double that in 2013)

You missed the point of our ETS!!!!
It not about cutting emissions if it was we would have the $2500 bulshit version the darkgreens and pinkos were advocating just before they were tipped out.
We sell shit to countries who are insane with eco this and save the planet that so we have to be seen to be doing what is right by their standards. All it would take is for a competitor of a NZ product to point the bony finger and say our products are to carbon expensive and we would be rogered up our exhaust pipes. To our customers it would be socially irresponsible to support destroying the planet.


As the world motto goes...

Keeping it green keeps the customers keen even if an ETS is a financial kick in the spleen.
(I do wonder though just how big bike mufflers can get before its ridiculous)

Repeat that 1000 times every hour while facing magnetic north until you loose any trace of independent thought.